Ocean currents have a huge impact on our planet. That's why it is beyond stupid for Trump to dismantle America's huge network of ocean sensors.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Oregon
Jeff Merkley
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 846
Yes28%
No71%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align97%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Jeff Merkley
U.S. SenatorDemocratOregon
SoupScore
Jeff's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 106 sponsored · 434 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
This week, Israeli security forces seized four students from their homes in the West Bank, including American Sama Safi. The students haven’t been charged. Sama’s family and the U.S. Embassy don’t know where she was taken. This is a five-alarm fire. The U.S. needs to secure Sama’s release NOW.
🚨 A new Trump Administration rule will make it harder for critical workers to get graduate degrees. This is a HUGE barrier for nurses when we already have a health care worker shortage and also affects teachers, counselors, and social workers. @repbonamici.bsky.social and I are working to repeal it!
Reposted bySenator Jeff Merkley
Tonight, Republicans turned their backs on Americans, rejecting every Democratic proposal to lower costs for families.
It is insanity to send $70 BILLION of Americans’ hard-earned money to two rogue agencies that are already sitting on a $100 BILLION of unspent funds.
No matter what the DOJ says, Trump’s “Cash for Cronies” slush fund won’t be put to rest until we get a law on the books to ban him—or any president—from raiding the Treasury to pay off their political allies. That’s what I’m pushing for.
Republicans want to trade one slush fund for another. Not good enough!
We need to ban ANY President from raiding the Treasury for a “Cash for Cronies” slush fund.
Republicans want to send ICE and Border Patrol another $70 billion and do NOTHING for you and your family.
The Republican ICE funding bill, summed up: 🗑️
The corruption is unending. The Trump swamp is a thousand feet deep.
Instead of working to bring down the costs of groceries, gas, housing, or health care, Republicans want to hand ANOTHER $70 BILLION to ICE and Border Patrol, without doing anything to help you and your family.
Totally ignoring families who are pressed to the wall.
What does the Republican bill do for American families?
Not a damn thing.
Trump’s nearly $2 billion slush fund for his political allies is a live issue. Trump himself is saying, “I love it, I think it’s so important.”
We need to ban Trump—or any president—from raiding the Treasury in a ‘Cash for Cronies’ scheme. I’m determined to do just that.
Republicans want to hand ICE and Border Patrol another $70 BILLION.
The kicker? The agencies are already sitting on nearly $100 billion in unobligated funds—enough to fund them for the next four years.
Completely wrong.
We’re over an hour and a half into our first vote on the Republican reconciliation bill. I’ll keep you updated.
Bill Pulte is dangerously unqualified.
Trump and Vought have put funding for critical programs—from child care to disaster preparedness—in limbo. They’re willing to defy Congress to cut funding and make families suffer.
This is Trump tightening his authoritarian grip, and I'll work to stop it.
Cruelty at the highest level.
I wrote the Children’s Safe Welcome Act to keep kids in the care of the United States safe.
My bill would shut down Dilley and stop the Trump Administration's depraved family detention policies. We need to pass it. Now.
Apparently, the Trump Administration now plans to drop the $2 billion dollar “cash for cronies” slush fund.
Welcome news, but I’ll believe it when I see it—in writing. Words aren’t enough—we need to pass a bill to BAN this corrupt scheme.
Bill Pulte’s main qualification seems to be that he’s willing to go after Trump’s political enemies, no matter the cost.
Purely authoritarian and incredibly sinister pick for Director of National Intelligence.
I’m a hell no.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History846 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
846 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 12 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 10 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (47-52) |
| 2025-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-43) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (54-44) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-42) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-28) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.